Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A clearer-than-it-would-be example: imagine there is a good-faith contributor who just causes unbelivable amounts of strife. They mean well, they make good-faith contributions, they haven't done anything *wrong* per se...
How would you define "good faith" in this context? I would say that if a contributor continues to do "X" after several good faith "please don't do X" requests from reasonable people, then that person is no longer a "good faith contributor" and any of his contributions with "X" in them are not "good faith contributions".
To a point, yes. It depends just as much on how the "reasonable" person is presenting himself. As long as the "reasonable" is just reverting without engaging in any kind of meaningful coversation, or just protecting a POV perhaps neither party is acting in good faith.
Ec